JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Smt. Suneeta Theophilous against the judgment and order dated 3-8-1981 of Sri B.D. Agarwal, Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in Criminal Revision No. 1 56/M/81 setting aside the order passed by the Additional City Magistrate, IV, Kanpur in a case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 2. It would not De necessary to set out the facts involved in this case in detail and it would suffice to say that both the Parties in this case were widows of Army Officers and were given a gas agency in partnership in Kanpur. A dispute arose over the management of this partnership firm, with the result that friction arose between them. On the application of the applicant made to the Station Officer, Police station' Govind Nagar, Kanpur, these proceedings were drawn up. The Station Officer on 9.7.1981 gave a report that there was an apprehension of breach of peace, the Magistrate recorded the statement of the Station Officer and he got satisfied that there was such apprehension of breach of peace. Then he made a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code and fixed 15.7.1981 for filing written-statements by the parties. Before these written statements could be filed, the applicant brought this revision in this court. In her application to the Station Officer the applicant said that things had become so bad that she could not go alone to the premises of this firm and could not send anybody else to look after her interest. But she clearly did not say that there was any dispute in respect of the possession over the shop in which this firm was working. The Magistrate in his order said that he was satisfied that there was a dispute in respect of the possession of the shop, but from the application of the applicant given to the Station Officer report of the Station Officer himself and .the statement of the Station Officer recorded by the Magistrate it was evident that it was not a dispute in respect of possession over this shop, but a dispute in respect of its management and when the dispute was only in respect of the management and both the parties were admittedly in possession over the shop, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code could not be drawn-up. 3. 3. It was then argued that on the report of the Station Officer, the Magistrate had absolute right to feel satisfied from the material placed before him and make an order under Section T45(1) of the Code; this could not be interfered with in revision by the Sessions Judge and it was also urged that since it was only an interlocutory order, a revision against it was not maintainable. For these two reasons, therefore, it was urged that the revision could not be allowed by the Sessions Judge and he could not interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. In this case the sufficiency of the material on which an order was made under Section 145(1) of the Code is not being examined, not was it examined by the learned Sessions Judge, the order passed under Section 145(1) of the Code was also not an interlocutory order. Interlocutory orders are such, which are passed during the pendency of some proceedings in between the beginning and the end of the proceedings, that is why they are called interlocutory orders. In the present case by means of this order, the proceedings were initiated, therefore, this was clearly not an interlocutory order and then even if this was an interlocutory order, the learned Sessions Judge was not examining its propriety, but the legality of the order was questioned by him and on the ground that the order was not legal, he could certainly examine the order whether interlocutory or riot in the revision before the Sessions Judge it was said that the dispute only related to the management of the firm and, therefore, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code could not be drawn up and this could certainly be examined by him in the revision. 5. I have, therefore, no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.